Astronomers find solar storms behave like supernovae

Feb 20, 2014

The plasma falling into the Sun split apart into 'fingers', like ink drops falling through water. Credit: NASA/SDO

(Phys.org) —Researchers at UCL have studied the behaviour of the Sun's coronal mass ejections, explaining for the first time the details of how these huge eruptions behave as they fall back onto the Sun's surface. In the process, they have discovered that coronal mass ejections have a surprising twin in the depths of space: the tendrils of gas in the Crab Nebula, which lie 6500 light-years away and are millions of times larger.

On 7 June 2011, the biggest ejection of material ever observed erupted from the surface of the Sun. Over the days that followed, the plasma belched out by the Sun made its way out into space. But most of the material propelled up from the Sun's surface quickly fell back towards our star's surface.

For the solar physicists at UCL's Mullard Space Science Laboratory, watching these solar fireworks was a unique opportunity to study how solar plasma behaves.

"We've known for a long time that the Sun has a magnetic field, like the Earth does. But in places it's far too weak for us to measure, unless we have something falling through it. The blobs of plasma that rained down from this beautiful explosion were the gift we'd been waiting for", says David Williams, one of the study's authors.

Since 2010, the NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) has been constantly photographing the surface of the Sun. To our eyes, our star seems almost unchanging, with occasional fleeting sunspots the only changes that can be seen without special apparatus. But the SDO's instruments can cut through the dazzling brightness, magnify the detail and see wavelengths of light which are blocked by the Earth's atmosphere. This combination of high-quality imaging and constant monitoring means that scientists can now see the detail of how the Sun's dynamic surface changes over time.

The 7 June 2011 eruption was by some margin the biggest recorded since this constant monitoring began, meaning the huge cascade of matter that fell back into the Sun following the eruption was a unique opportunity to study, on an unusually large scale, the fluid dynamics of these phenomena.

"We noticed that the shape of the plume of plasma was quite particular," says Jack Carlyle, lead author of the study. "As it fell into the Sun, it repeatedly split apart like drops of ink falling through water, with fingers of material branching out. It didn't stick together. It's a great example of an effect where light and heavy fluids mix."

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The 7 June 2011 solar storm, seen by the Solar Dynamics Observatory. Credit: NASA/SDO, Acknowledgement: Helioviewer

Less dense materials typically float on top of denser ones without mixing together, for example oil sitting on water, or layers of different liqueurs in a cocktail. Change the order by putting the denser fluid on top, however, and the denser one will quickly fall through the less-dense one until their positions are reversed. The complex pattern formed by the denser fluid as it repeatedly splits and branches into ever-finer 'fingers' of matter, is caused by a phenomenon known as the Rayleigh-Taylor instability.

The team noticed in SDO's high-resolution images that the falling plasma clearly underwent the Rayleigh-Taylor instability as it returned to the Sun's surface. This is as would be expected – the solar plasma is denser than the solar atmosphere it is falling through. In space, a similar effect has been observed before, albeit on a much larger scale, in the Crab Nebula.

The Crab Nebula is the remnant of a supernova which exploded in the 10th century. In the millennium that has followed the explosion, denser matter has started to fall back into the centre of the nebula, exhibiting the same finger-like structures as the team observed in the Sun.

A major study of the Crab Nebula in 1996 found that the Rayleigh-Taylor instability in the Crab Nebula was actually slightly modified. The highly magnetised environment in the nebula changes the proportions of the fingers, making them fatter than they would be otherwise.

The UCL team found that the same effect was going on in the 7 June 2011 coronal mass ejection: even in an area where the Sun's magnetic field was weak, it was modifying the Rayleigh-Taylor effect, changing the shape of the plume of plasma as it fell back into the Sun. This is the most spectacular example of the effect ever observed on the Sun.

More information: The research appears in a paper entitled "Investigating the dynamics and density evolution of returning plasma blobs from the 2011 June 7 eruption", published in the 20 February 2014 issue of the Astrophysical Journal: iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/782/2/87/article

Related Stories

Eruptive events on the sun can be wildly different. Some come just with a solar flare, some with an additional ejection of solar material called a coronal mass ejection (CME), and some with complex moving structures in association ...

An enormous sunspot, labeled AR1944, slipped into view over the sun's left horizon late on Jan. 1, 2014. The sunspot steadily moved toward the right, along with the rotation of the sun, and now sits almost ...

This still image was taken from a new NASA movie of the sun based on data from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, or SDO, showing the wide range of wavelengths – invisible to the naked eye – that the ...

The Sun unleashed an M-2 (medium-sized) solar flare, an S1-class (minor) radiation storm and a spectacular coronal mass ejection (CME) on June 7, 2011 from sunspot complex 1226-1227. The large cloud of particles ...

Recommended for you

Like the lost little puppy that wanders too far from home, astronomers have found an unusually small and distant group of stars that seems oddly out of place. The cluster, made of only a handful of stars, ...

A team of astronomers, led by Darach Watson, from the University of Copenhagen used the Very Large Telescope's X-shooter instrument along with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) to observe ...

Most of the times we have looked at Uranus, it has seemed to be a relatively calm place. Well, yes its atmosphere is the coldest place in the solar system. But, when we picture the seventh planet in our ...

Collisions between galaxies, and even less dramatic gravitational encounters between them, are recognized as triggering star formation. Observations of luminous galaxies, powered by starbursts, are consistent ...

User comments : 66

Re: "We noticed that the shape of the plume of plasma was quite particular," says Jack Carlyle, lead author of the study. "As it fell into the Sun, it repeatedly split apart like drops of ink falling through water, with fingers of material branching out. It didn't stick together. It's a great example of an effect where light and heavy fluids mix."

Repeating over and over that this is the behavior of fluids does not necessarily suggest that this is the right inference. Filaments are also the expected morphology that laboratory plasma physicists have come to expect when observing electrodynamic plasmas.

In the plasma laboratory, plasma physicists formulate a very different set of inferences for the formation of filaments which is based upon electrodynamics principles and a phenomenon known as Marklund Convection.

What is interesting to observe is that astrophysicists appear to generally not understand what Marklund Convection actually is. And so, what we see within the science reporting, is no mention of this laboratory plasma phenomenon within discussions of what are arguably plasmas.

Astrophysicists therefore put the public into a difficult situation, for people like Tim Thompson have openly clarified that astrophysicists do not read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science. So, this leaves open the question of how astrophysicists know that their inferences are actually accurate.

If the experts ignore journals which publish on experiences with laboratory plasmas, then why should the public believe astrophysical inferences which ignore fundamental plasma physics processes?

To be clear, there is an impending crisis in cosmology that is only observable to those who read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science: Evidence is steadily mounting that the WMAP is not actually a relic radiation. Studies of the spectral HI hydrogen signal within all-sky surveys indicate the widespread existence of critical ionization velocities embedded into the filaments in these radio surveys. There is little ambiguity in what this means, for people who are familiar with laboratory plasmas.

The choice to generally ignore IEEE has led the WMAP team -- and astrophysicists & cosmologists more generally -- to fail to appreciate the importance of radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur's cosmic observation of CIV's. What this means is that ionization is an ongoing process within interstellar space. The association of CIV's with knots in these interstellar filaments suggests that the filaments are conducting electrical currents.

Re: "This should also be a good lesson for the plasma cosmology bunch, regarding how plasma still functions mainly as an ideal fluid, and is only slightly modified by electromagnetic effects."

But, notice that the "plasma cosmology bunch" is making claims about ExB forces and Marklund Convection, so it seems the first step would be to learn about the laboratory processes which lead to filamentation in laboratory plasmas.

Then, the next step would be to show why the fluid-based explanation is better than the plasma-based explanation.

Right?

Where did I go wrong? There are two inferences. If the desire is to favor one of them, then both need to be considered.

How can astrophysicists come to a conclusion by simply ignoring the competing claim?

This should also be a good lesson for the plasma cosmology bunch,,,, and is only slightly modified by electromagnetic effects.

Comments like this one are on par with other funny statements such as - Tiger Woods is a serial monogamist - or - Hydrogen gravitationally compressed itself. I omitted the "behaves as an ideal fluid" portion of the quote because it does under certain circumstances, so that is partially accurate.

Really bad stance to debate from given the means by which every particle accelerator functions coupled with our knowledge of plasma composition. A magnetic field is the only way to direct the motion of one or many charged particles, plasma is composed of charged particles.

If we replace the word "mainly" in your quote with the word "partially" and remove the word "slightly" altogether, you would have said something intelligent...as opposed to appearing to have been trolling for a debate with the EU proponents.

there is an impending crisis in cosmology that is only observable to those who read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science

@Alfvenpersonal conjecture with no evidence

Evidence is steadily mounting that the WMAP is not actually a relic radiation

links?proof?

Studies of the spectral HI hydrogen signal within all-sky surveys indicate the widespread existence of critical ionization velocities embedded into the filaments in these radio surveys

&

The CMB is simply a local electromagnetic fog

speculation without evidencelinks?proof?

EU is a debunked not-even-a-hypothesis because it is written by electrical engineers attempting to do astrophysics without taking all astrophysical physics into consideration because they are not trained to do so.

Unfortunately, astrophysicists are unfamiliar with real plasma physics and choose to rely on "models we know to be wrong"

@cantdriveare you really going to start posting obvious stupidity again?I will write THESE authors and have them personally debunk your BS just like the other linksyou got schooled already by Tim ThompsonEU is PSEUDOSCIENCE

@no fatethey come to these comments because they feel superior venting their pseudosciences herethe only problem is that there is sometimes a physicist (like Tim Thompson) that shows up to correct themlike in the higgs article (linked last post)even the above comments were refuted in another article (river of hydrogen link)

EU supporters fear public debate by real physicists

EU is electrical engineers trying to pull off astrophysics, without training or knowledge, based upon hallucinations and speculationsjust ask them about how the grand canyon was formed!their sun model is USELESS PSEUDOSCIENCE BUNK

Then, the next step would be to show why the fluid-based explanation is better than the plasma-based explanation.

Right?

Where did I go wrong?

Right, so go ahead and do it. Take the images and perform an objective statistical analyisis to determine whether your proposed mechanism or their slighly magnetically modified Rayleigh-Taylor instability is the better fit. make sure you use the best measurement of the magnetic fields and if you want to include hypothetical currents, show that you can derive their value observationally too.

Spending time doing these calculations costs, so if you want it done, it's down to you to apply for the grants or fund it yourself, that is how science has always been done.

"@no fatethey come to these comments because they feel superior venting their pseudosciences herethe only problem is that there is sometimes a physicist (like Tim Thompson) that shows up to correct them"

I followed that thread, Tim did a better job describing the meanings behind plasma jargon than anyone else I have seen on a forum like this. His knowledge was both consistent and up to date. If CD85 had a true understanding of plasma, he would have left that debate long before it became embarrassing. That was mainly about the term "magnetic reconnection", a term which also gives me pause as there is technically no reconnection taking place, a joining, sometimes a collision, either way you don't have flux fields reconnecting that were separated. The process is as linked by Tim in that thread, but the fields that impinge each other are a secondary field generated by the bulk particle motion inside the existing field.

The theory described in my link is interesting because it predicted exactly what is observed in the article above. Isn't that interesting? The theory made a prediction, using math, and then someone went and looked to see if the real world matched the model, and it does.

What's even better is that since the model appears to be correct, it gives us confidence that we can use the model to derive quantities by mathimatical inference which we are not able to measure directly at present. Of course you still have to be cautious, but astronomers are nothing if not cautious, most of them anyway.

The theory described in my link is interesting because it predicted exactly what is observed in the article above. Isn't that interesting? The theory made a prediction, using math, and then someone went and looked to see if the real world matched the model, and it does.

What's even better is that since the model appears to be correct, it gives us confidence that we can use the model to derive quantities by mathimatical inference which we are not able to measure directly at present. Of course you still have to be cautious, but astronomers are nothing if not cautious, most of them anyway.

Still relying on "models we know to be wrong..."? Astronomers are also cautious to ignore that which creates magnetism, electricity.

Astronomers are also cautious to ignore that which creates magnetism, electricity

@cant thinkI put in your question, using your quotes above and your statements, included the links to this article, and sent it to the author Jack Carlyle, just like I did with Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo here http://phys.org/n...ack.htmlwe will let him destroy your idiotic argument for himself. Just like Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo did when you got stupid in the other thread.Although had you read Gswifts link ( http://iopscience...1_41.pdf ) you would not be posting stupidity still.

Read it, not surprising the authors of that paper share my view..."We are aware that the simple model used here may be subjected to some criticism"

@cdcherry picking as if i didnt read it myself?are you REALLY THAT STUPID? never mind... that was rhetorical as it is obvious you didnt COMPREHEND what you DID read...

The linear analysis only gives us limitedunderstanding of the complex phenomena behind the RTI. Fullynonlinear analysis is necessary to model the evolution of thesystem in later stages. Nevertheless, the linear analysis providesus with an interesting case for comparing with forthcomingsimulations and clearly the prediction of lower growth rateshas to be checked out.

also... it MAKES A PREDICTIONsee GSwift7:

The theory made a prediction, using math, and then someone went and looked to see if the real world matched the model, and it does

you cannot say astrophysicists dont understand plasma or electrical phenomenon given this study

The mechanism proposed by Bruce is known to be impossible. He claims electrostatic fields built up by dust particle collisions in a general background atmospheric temperature of 4,000 Kelvins. But we know that dust cannot survive in a collisional environment with a temperature in excess of about 2000 Kelvins. See the details of my refutation, dated 24 June 2009, here:

What is interesting to observe is that astrophysicists appear to generally not understand what Marklund Convection actually is.

Oh yes they do, but no practicing engineer or physicist ever uses that name for it; "Marklund convection" is arcane terminology for an effect that Marklund did not actually describe quite correctly in any case. The cylindrical symmetry plasma flows he talks about are unstable and come apart. The modern terminology for this is a "kink instability" (or sometimes "sausage instability"). These breakdowns in plasma confinement are well known to any astrophysicist who works with plasma astrophysics (see, e.g., "Plasma Physics for Astrophysics", Russell M. Kulsrud, Princeton University Press, 2005, chapter 7: "The Energy Principle and Instabilities".

You're describing apples and oranges. Marklund convection describes the ordering of the constituent parts within a Z-pinched plasma. The arrangement of said plasma has been confirmed by lab experiment.

There appears to be a disconnect in Tim Thompson's claims. He suggests here that astrophysicists are experts in plasma physics processes …

"… These breakdowns in plasma confinement are well known to any astrophysicist who works with plasma astrophysics (see, e.g., "Plasma Physics for Astrophysics", Russell M. Kulsrud, Princeton University Press, 2005, chapter 7: "The Energy Principle and Instabilities" …"

But, in other public forums, he has gone out of his way to point out that astrophysicists generally do not read IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Sciences …

"any paper published on this topic [of modeling galaxies as fundamentally electrodynamical processes] in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science should be ignored"

"… where they are guaranteed to never be seen or read by anyone who actually does research in galaxy formation or any other field of astrophysics or cosmology."

"the answer is that nobody has ever READ them, at least nobody involved seriously in the galaxy business."

"I am quite certain that most of them [JPL's Evolution of Galaxies Group] do not even know that the IEEE journal exists at all"

---

So, there are different levels of expertise at play here: Since there are two competing worldviews, there are expertises associated with EACH of them. And on top of that, there is also expertise associated with the debate itself. A person can be fluent in both worldviews, and yet still not be familiar with how the arguments tend to play out. So, there are three separate expertises here.

Tim Thompson has already admitted that astrophysicists are not fluent in the papers in IEEE, so that rules out two of these three expertises.

But, even if we were to give astrophysicists the benefit of the doubt, then it would raise very serious questions about why -- if they are indeed familiar with Marklund Convection -- they fail to mention to people that it offers another inference to consider for their observations?

Tim Thompson has already admitted that astrophysicists are not fluent in the papers in IEEE, so that rules out two of these three expertises

@AlfvenWRONGastrophysicists dont visit IEEE because that would be like asking a Firefighter to visit the world plumbing institute to learn about waterIEEE is NOT the only game in town, and elec. Engineers (EE) do NOT take astrophysical effects into consideration when speculating about plasma, whereas astrophysicists DOEE's are NOT qualified to speculate about astrophysics as they are not educated or capable of making astrophysical speculations due to ignorance of subject matter.

Want LINKS to astrophysicists doing plasma physics? There are MANY!HOWEVER, the only links YOU use are to PSEUDOSCIENCE site about the EU philosophy.

IEEE is NOT A REPUTABLE SITE FOR ASTROPHYSICS AS IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO PUBLISH KNOWN FALLACIES IN THE GUISE OF REPUTABLE SCIENCE

it might be GREAT for EE's, but IT IS NOT REPUTABLE for AstrophysicsPERIOD

Re: "we've discussed Verschuur's claims before that issue was settled"

This paper which has been pointed to -- Correlation between galactic Hi and the Cosmic Microwave Background -- states:

"There is no established mechanism by which the Galactic neutral hydrogen could affect the WMAP data, besides the fact that it spatially correlates with other contaminants. Thus, a statistically significant correlation would indicate that either there is a previously unknown emission process taking place or, more likely, that the CMB data has not been adequately cleaned or masked."

Verschuur's publications -- some of them in the Astrophysical Journal -- are very clear. Land and Slosar appear to write as though they are unfamiliar with the exact claims being made, even though Verschuur has very clearly made the following claims, which he supports with very specific data:

1. The interstellar "clouds" are not at all cloud-like. They are incredibly filamentary.

Since there are two competing worldviews, there are expertises associated with EACH of them

@AlfvenWRONG AGAINastrophysicists take into consideration effects that EE's NEVER LEARN ABOUTtherefore EE's cannot speculate intelligently about modern astrophysics without additional training

astrophysicists are not fluent in the papers in IEEE

most are probably not up on biology either... your point is?I noticed that Forensic Anthropologists are not up on IEEE eitherdoes that mean that they are not capable of understanding the known of their field?

THIS IS ONE REASON THAT EU cannot publicly debate astrophysicists... they cannot consider outside influences other than their own research/pseudoscience sites or IEEE publicationsastrophysicists are not building motherboards or X-boxescompletely different world

2. These filaments exhibit redshifts that correspond to critical ionization velocities (CIV), which suggests that the filaments are conducting charged particles, and even actively ionizing space.

3. Automated algorithms such as the "tests" devised by Land and Slosar would predictably miss the correlations which Verschuur has observed. He is emphatic in his papers on this topic that the only way to correctly separate out the overlapping redshifts with Gaussian fitting is to do this by hand. It requires thousands of hours of work.

4. Furthermore, the filaments should be expected to be somewhat dynamic. They will predictably move about a bit, so mismatches between the WMAP and all-sky radio surveys are to be expected.

The decision to publish papers which dismiss Verschuur's claims while simultaneously ignoring their basis puts astrophysics and cosmology on a path towards crisis. The public can decide literally OVERNIGHT that the entire endeavor is nonsense.

Re: "astrophysicists take into consideration effects that EE's NEVER LEARN ABOUTtherefore EE's cannot speculate intelligently about modern astrophysics without additional training"

A person does not have to get a degree in astrophysics in order to critique its claims. The context for the application of MHD equations to cosmic plasmas is not bound up within the mathematical equations. We need no deep fluency in math to understand the failure of MHD equations to model electric fields in cosmic plasmas. This is not rocket science, folks.

It takes no math to observe that Alfven's repeated warnings about MHD's application are not being taught to university physics graduate students.

Anybody with a basic awareness of the principles of science can pick up Verschuur's publications and understand the claims being made against the WMAP group.

@ Hannes, when are ya going to learn that "world views" are not an aspect of science. They belong in the realm of philosophy, religion, and governance. There is no "world view of physics". Why don't ya try one of those new agey, philospeak, everything is true type of forums? We all know why, ya only want to annoy, and give some "payback" because ya didn't have the discipline necessary to do science.

Trolling out of petty payback and vengeance, still makes ya a troll. And it certainly doesn't make ya a philosopher, a real philosopher would realize his internal conflicts and study them instead of seeking to hide them from himself by seeking satisfaction in being merely obnoxiousness.

Ya can pretend to be a new "Socrates", but it's obvious to everyone that the only agenda ya have is to annoy pure and simple. Payback because ya were found lacking in discipline and couldn't make the grade.

Perhaps I am missing something obvious, but this huge filament in the new WMAP appears to me to correspond to the Magellanic foreground structure. Why are we still calling this a relic radiation of some Big Bang, again?

A person could be forgiven for believing this up until Jeff Schmidt pulled the trigger on his lifelong plan to become a whisteblower with his book "Disciplined Minds". From that book …

"The scientific ideologies, or "paradigms," that scientists internalize during their training guide their thinking in every important area of their work, determining, for example, the particular abstractions or models they use, the procedures they consider valid and even their notion of what constitutes progress and understanding. But how are the paradigms chosen? As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn observed, paradigms are incommensurable -- that is, there is no transcendent scientific framework in which one can compare paradigms and choose the best, and so such choices are made on the basis of values, or social factors."

"Since no two paradigms solve the same problems, the choice between them involves deciding which problems it is most important to solve -- clearly a question of values. In any historical era the values of those at the top of the social hierarchy dominate: as a result the paradigms that emerge from the scientific competition have a built-in tilt toward establishment priorities. Through the paradigms, then, social forces direct scientific work even in the rare cases when employers or funding agencies do not.

Because they internalize both the paradigms and their employers' priorities and values, scientists, at least in their own eyes, are completely nonpartisan in their work: They don't "get political." They don't think about, let alone challenge, the ideology built into their techniques. Contrary to popular images of scientists as challengers of established beliefs (like Galileo or Einstein) …"

You seem to think that Verschuur's claim is somehow rebutted by this paper by Land and Slosar

@Alfven

We revisit the issue of a correlation between the atomic hydrogen gas in our local Galaxy and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), a detection of which has been claimed in some literature. We cross-correlate the 21-cm emission of Galactic atomic hydrogen as traced by the Leiden/Argentine/Bonn Galactic Hi survey with the 3-year CMB data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. We consider a number of angular scales, masks, and Hi velocity slices and find no statistically significant correlation

"… the vast majority of scientists never seek to test their paradigms and do not participate in paradigm disputes. They don't waste their employers' coin by getting caught up in efforts to overthrow existing worldviews or to establish new ones. Instead, they tend to treat the accepted models of reality as reality itself." (page 82, Disciplined Minds)

"A faculty member who talks informally with a student in the hallway or at the weekly after-colloquium reception inevitably comes away with a feeling about whether or not that student 'thinks like a physicist.' The student's political outlook can easily make a difference in the faculty member's assessment. For example, in the usual informal discussion of an issue in the news, the student who rails against technical incompetence and confines his thoughts to the search for technical solutions within the given political framework builds a much more credible image as a professional physicist …"

"… than does the student who emphasizes the need to alter the political framework as part of the solution. Indeed, the latter approach falls outside the work assignments given to professional physicists in industry and academe and so represents thinking unlike a physicist's." (Jeff Schmidt, Disciplined Minds, p134)

In other words, what Jeff is saying is that, at the end of the day, what guides the training is the need of these large institutions to have scientists that are professional. These institutions do not want scientists who have a tendency to question the assumptions inherent to the framework within which they will be assigned. Students are first taught how to be professional within the context of the theoretical scientific framework they are instructed on. Then, when they get a job at some larger institution, the transition will be far easier.

The question which Schmidt raises here pertains to the meaning for consensus in science. It seems to be MANUFACTURED.

A person could be forgiven for believing this up until Jeff Schmidt pulled the trigger on his lifelong plan to become a whisteblower with his book "Disciplined Minds"

@Alfvenit appears to me that you are saying: anyone who fails to meet the criteria for meeting the basic requirements for a program should be allowed to graduate said program based upon the work they did with regard to the time/money they spentIOW- just because I paid my money, I deserve a degree.This is absurdthere is a minimal requirement that MUST be met to be a degreed professionalI believe, given the things I have read to date, that Schmidt backed a losing pony and forgot his training, skipped ahead to the possibilities of glory and Nobel honours, and forgot to do his homework.... given the stars in his eyes, he lost track of what it takes to accomplish what was needed, and therefore was dropped

quoting an opinion piece is NOT science eitherhad he evidence, he should be taking legal actionNOT WHINING

Re: "It appears to me that you are saying: anyone who fails to meet the criteria for meeting the basic requirements for a program should be allowed to graduate said program based upon the work they did with regard to the time/money they spentIOW- just because I paid my money, I deserve a degree.This is absurd"

No, this is entirely inaccurate. Please re-read Schmidt's quote, and realize that this is not a private discussion we are having here. Even if YOU do not understand what Schmidt is saying, the others who are reading this thread nevertheless do.

Re: "given the things I have read to date, that Schmidt backed a losing pony and forgot his training, skipped ahead to the possibilities of glory and Nobel honours, and forgot to do his homework.... given the stars in his eyes, he lost track of what it takes to accomplish what was needed, and therefore was dropped"

Actually, you just made all of this up. None of this is remotely reflective of Schmidt's story.

Re: "We revisit the issue of a correlation between the atomic hydrogen gas in our local Galaxy and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), a detection of which has been claimed in some literature. We cross-correlate the 21-cm emission of Galactic atomic hydrogen as traced by the Leiden/Argentine/Bonn Galactic Hi survey with the 3-year CMB data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. We consider a number of angular scales, masks, and Hi velocity slices and find no statistically significant correlation"

By the way, this is in no way a response to Verschuur's claim -- which he goes into detail on in his numerous papers -- that Gaussian fitting of multiple overlapping features requires a human being to process. He is very clear that there is no known algorithm which can be used to identify his claimed correlations. He confirms that these automated tests should be expected to not produce any statistically significant correlations.

HEY Q-Star!Have you ever gone to a science symposium /conference/etc and voted on who had the best presentation and been told that the vote would be the consensus for the world?

Not exactly like that. The "High Imperious Council Of Guardians Of The Approved Science" meet from time to time, in a secret location to decide on what the rest of us have to pretend to believe if we want to keep our jobs.

After each of their conclaves they send out notices about what theories are acceptable. If it's not on the list, ya are not allowed to write a paper on or push it on a forum such as this one. Ya could lose your job.

More importantly which ones are required to be denounced as crank or crackpottery. The penalties for not strictly adhering to this are severe. If ya don't excoriate them severely enough, ya might find yourself consigned to trying to earn a living writing "whistleblowing" exposes and internet blogs.

@Alfvenre-read: still no change in my opinion... mostly because I also went to his site and read some of his ranting and railing against the institutions.if he has a legitimate gripe, there is grounds for legal actionIMHO- given that he has chosen to whine and gripe in such a manner, when he was fully willing to challenge his former employers in court over being fired for "stealing time at work" then I would seriously consider the fact that he DID NOT use litigation as a method for recompense a seriously strong indicator that he received a justified release from the academic program.Most of his rantings,as well as the book, seem to be for purposes of generating controversy, and therefore sales.Therefore my assessment of the quote stands as logical given the historical background and the observations stated above

On December 10, 2007 his work with respect to COBE, WMAP, and HI, was published in The Astrophysical Journal.[12] However, in a more systematic examination of the maps published that same year in The Physical Review, Land and Slosar [13] find the data do not support the correlation claimed by Verschuur.

[sic]in which I read both studies and I believe the latter to be correct. The data do not support the claims of Verschuur.

there is no known algorithm which can be used to identify his claimed correlations

and with all that tinkering BY HAND, there is just no possible way he could have made a mistake?

why are we talking about this?

you brought it up and there is proof that your statements are wronguntil there is empirical data that says otherwise, I will continue to support the Land/Slosar study in regard to V's claims

FROM THE AUTHOR"I'm a bit confused by some of the detractors' comments, especially things that seem to imply I treat this material as a fluid and not a plasma - when in actual fact it is both (and I treat it as such). The fact that I consider the magnetic Rayleigh-Taylor effect shows this - unless we were dealing with some kind of ferro-fluid, the material needs to be (at least partially) ionised (the defenition of a plasma) in order for the magnetic fields to have any effect at all. I will admit I am no experimental plasma physics expert, however the notion that astrophysicists and plasma physicists are entirely separate is simply not true. One of the co-authors on this paper is one of the most knowledgable people on the RT instability I have met, and he is trained as a mathematician, so should have no bias towards astrophysics."[sic]

@cd85@Alfvencontinued..."I'm a bit confused which claims are "in direct conflict with reality", or which "models we know to be wrong", so it's difficult for me to counter these specific points. The work has undergone rigorous peer-review, and I honestly do not think the entire astrophysics community is ignoring lab plasma physics."[sic]

directly from the author in refute to your commentsAGAIN (cd85- this is a bad habit of yours)

I would be happy to post everything the author said, or you could contact the author yourself... but if you have issues and want to discuss the studies, I suggest learning a little physics first, as you WILL be made to look very stupid if you go with your current posted arguments.

You are a rube... Of course he will not admit his shortcomings. Ignorance prevents him from knowing the shortcomings. The "rigorous" peer review is by folks who "believe" as you do they are using accurate models. He is not even aware there is a conflict between the competing models, how can his POV be of any value?

By the way, this is in no way a response to Verschuur's claim -- which he goes into detail on in his numerous papers -- that Gaussian fitting of multiple overlapping features requires a human being to process. He is very clear that there is no known algorithm which can be used to identify his claimed correlations. He confirms that these automated tests should be expected to not produce any statistically significant correlations.

In other words, Verschuur has been deluded by apophenia, and you got suckered into believing him.

Of course he will not admit his shortcomings. Ignorance prevents him from knowing the shortcomings

@cd85 TROLLI would say that I am stunned by your STUPIDITY but you have done this before...obviously there are comprehension issues that you have!perhaps you MISSED this part?

...the notion that astrophysicists and plasma physicists are entirely separate is simply not true. One of the co-authors on this paper is one of the most knowledgable people on the RT instability I have met, and he is trained as a mathematician, so should have no bias towards astrophysics.

but then you posted this:

He is not even aware there is a conflict between the competing models, how can his POV be of any value

you have supported the theory that you are not just ignorant of facts, but STUPID -given that you have IGNORED the obvious as well as offered NO PROOF for your conjecture other than your OPINION and 30y/o or older opinion

You're describing apples and oranges. Marklund convection describes the ordering of the constituent parts within a Z-pinched plasma.

You and I were/are both wrong. I made the mistake of believing the Wiki page that describes "Marklund convection", which is wrong because the motion described by Marklund is diffusion, not convection, so calling it "convection" is both factually wrong and misleading. Furthermore, the Marklund process is irrelevant to the discussion. He very explicitly describes a process for separating heavy ions from electrons, given both a thermal gradient and an electric field gradient. This is relevant only to flare chemistry, not to flare energetics. Furthermore, Marklund's plasma is not pinched; all pinches require a compressive force, but Marklund is quite specific about dealing with a force-free condition. On all fronts you are wrong.

I made the mistake of believing the Wiki page that describes "Marklund convection", which is wrong because the motion described by Marklund is diffusion, not convection, so calling it "convection" is both factually wrong and misleading.

Not sure what you are asking about "edit". The source for "Marklund convection" is "Plasma convection in force-free magnetic fields as a mechanism for chemical separation in cosmical plasmas", G.T. Marklund, Nature 277: 370-372 (1 Feb 1979). It is a 2-page letter that has only 7 citations in 35 years: http://adsabs.har...77..370M

I have read the paper. It is not relevant at all to energetics, and it is not relevant to processes outside the solar system, except perhaps some special cases, because the heavy element abundances are so low. Marklund is trying to address the chemical composition of the photosphere and suggests observations might be skewed by this mechanism. The idea is not unreasonable for 1979, but has no real impact in today's solar science.

"I am quite certain that most of them [JPL's Evolution of Galaxies Group] do not even know that the IEEE journal exists at all"

I wonder if i can guess who you are behind the pseudonym. But I digress. This is not some intellectual war between "astrophysicists" and "engineers". The large majority of both never deal with plasmas at all and so have little knowledge in the field. As a general rule, your average astrophysicist will know more about plasma than your average electrical engineer, since the engineering curricula are completely devoid of any plasma science (I know, I have taught electrical engineers), while the average physicist will always take at least one course with a partial emphasis on plasma physics (I took 3, and have co-authored one paper in space plasma physics: http://adsabs.har...94..121B ).

"I am quite certain that most of them [JPL's Evolution of Galaxies Group] do not even know that the IEEE journal exists at all"

And why should any astrophysicist care about the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Physics? There is virtually nothing in that journal of any astrophysical relevance, just look at the synopsis of topics on the journal webpage: high current electron beams, controlled fusion, arc technology, laser-plasma interactions. Nobody has the time to read every journal. The plasma physics in the Journal of Plasma Physics (Cambridge) or the Physics of Plasmas (AIP) are far more appropriate, as well as the plasma physics in the Astrophysical Journal.

The open claim that astrophysicists are inferior in their understanding of plasma physics is both false & stupid.

The context for the application of MHD equations to cosmic plasmas is not bound up within the mathematical equations. We need no deep fluency in math to understand the failure of MHD equations to model electric fields in cosmic plasmas. This is not rocket science, folks.

No, it isn't rocket science. It's astrophysics, and everything else in this paragraph is pushing-up daisies dead wrong, except that indeed you don't need the degree. But you do need the equivalent knowledge base, which you seriously lack.

It takes no math to observe that Alfven's repeated warnings about MHD's application are not being taught to university physics graduate students.

Alfven's warnings are not being taught because we know, and is has been conclusively proven beyond doubt, that Alfven was dead wrong in his claims about magnetic reconnection, and his claims about the frozen flux approximation are no longer relevant. My knowledge trumps your bias every time.

@Tim Thompsonsorry, I should have been more specific.I was referring to edit as in: edit the Wiki page to update the informationfrom your comment

I made the mistake of believing the Wiki page that describes "Marklund convection", which is wrong because the motion described by Marklund is diffusion, not convection, so calling it "convection" is both factually wrong and misleading

thanks for the links and for explaining{and for continuing to explain)it is very much appreciated!

The source for "Marklund convection" is "Plasma convection in force-free magnetic fields as a mechanism for chemical separation in cosmical plasmas", G.T. Marklund, Nature 277: 370-372 (1 Feb 1979). It is a 2-page letter that has only 7 citations in 35 years

He also spotted more than 100 other "nonsense" papers unwittingly published by the New York-based Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), the journal Nature reported.

just one more reason that REAL scientists may be leaving IEEE alone when looking for scientific data/studies to repeat/useIOW- astrophysicists cant trust it to be validand apparently, engineers shouldnt be using it either, according to the above...

And really, if you produced a series of papers dealing with astrophysics, why would you want to publish them in a plasma journal with a low impact factor (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science IF=1.174) versus an astrophysics journal with a high impact factor (Astrophysical Journal IF=6.024, Astronomy & Astrophysics IF=4.587)?